Rugby Union just isn't cricket anymore.

Although I enjoy the odd game of American football (I have watched a few Super bowls)and it has always struck me as a game of chess. I know of no other game played with the oval shaped ball where the coach has as much on field input as in the case of American football.

The coach has a defensive and offensive squad, the team get 4 chances to gain 10 yards, and after every move there is a stop in play. After every play the coach makes a call.
The fact that American football has 3 on field umpires makes it easier for each umpire to watch a specific identifying play and hence foul play, off sides etc. can be easily pick up.
Modern rugby is fast becoming a farce due to the fact that too many games are being decided upon technical infringements and players seeing what they can get away with from a refereeing perspective.

The IRB has created an animal that has made Rugby Union a game not necessarily better off with the advent and change of some laws.

Now we have all had our bash at referees during the past world cup and some with enough reason to suggest that Rugby Union is in dire need of some clear minds from the IRB’s side.

As much as we do not want to blame referees for our team’s losses, it is inevitable that it will happen due to our emotional tie to a sport we all love. The fact is referees are simply not equipped to deal with the pace and complexity of the modern game.

I don’t believe the answer is in getting more referees on the field or getting the TMO involved in a broader capacity as what they currently have. The reason is quite simple. Different to American football, Rugby Union is a game of momentum, retention of possession and creating pressure with patient attack, and any referring to a TMO will simply just kill off the game.

The only real "time out" in rugby occurs after points have been scored and a match restarts from the half way line.

Now getting to the point of article.

Rugby just isn’t cricket anymore. When you go back any number of years, rugby was a game that was decided on the physical dominance of one team over another.

Scrums were a platform where dominant forward packs used their superiority to win their own scrum ball and gain tight heads. The ball was thrown in straight and the feeding team dictated the hit. Now that made sense as the team awarded the scrum as an award for the mistake made by another team could use the scrum to their advantage.

In modern rugby, the advantage of a dominant forward pack is totally negated by the change of law where the referee dictates the hit. Free kicks for early engagement, penalties for props not binding or getting their hands on the floor is common place in just about every match played these days. The technical aspect of scrums evolve around how to “con” the referee into awarding a penalty or free kick, and is no longer a weapon of grinding the opposition into submission with pure physical power. The feed hasn’t been straight since the first legitimately written pay check for a rugby union player.

In the line out there was no lifting of a player. The lineout was a place for dominance by superior athletes, either being able to time their jump in coordination with the throw of the hooker, or simply out jumping the opponent to their ball.

In the modern era of rugby union it is permissible to lift a player, and often the deemed “interference” by an opposing jumper contesting for a ball is seen as a penalty offence. The sad fact is half the time the jumper is not brought to ground safely by his own lifters, and any slight interference can cause the jumper to go to ground in an unsafe manner.

Rucking was another method of asserting dominance at the breakdown and any unwanted opponent on the wrong side of the ruck was summarily removed by force. The laws were simpler and the transgressing players quickly learned offside play was not tolerated.

These days the breakdown area is most likely the single most important aspect of modern day rugby and yet the area of most contention. Players are continuously off their feet, lying on the wrong side of the ruck, hands all over the ball and not releasing. The referee has to decide in an instant which player did what regarding any number of infringements and this has become the greatest influencing factor of which way a game goes.

Back in the day back line moves were few and far between as rehearsed efforts, teams relied upon individual brilliance to advance, be it a muscle bound behemoths who had the ability to run through a brick wall, a 10 second hundred meter athlete who would simply ran around the defence or a player who had the ability to step off either foot and thus beat his opponent. The dummy was really the only tactic used to flummox the opponent and any play seen as obstruction was summarily penalised. Drawing defenders and delaying the offload to a player in a gap was common sense. The hand off was a sight to behold.

These days back line moves are as common as professional rugby players, half the time the goal is to create an “obstruction” by using dummy runners in a manner not deemed as obstruction. I seldom see a proper hand off, where the runner fend off a would be defender by timing his “Hand of god” at the precise moment to fend off a defender, back line play is over coached and over rehearsed to the point where individual brilliance is rarely seen. The main goal is create a gap through questionable “obstruction” and complicated plays in order for a speedster to run on the angle and break the line.

Not all of it is bad in my opinion, the angled running is superb to watch when executed brilliantly efficient and without any questionable “deemed obstructions”. However the compexity of laws around scrums, line outs and the breakdown has taken away the "credibility" of the sport.

There will always be brilliantly talented individuals playing the game of rugby union and it is my hope that rugby union will remain a sport where the winner is decided by the players, be it physical dominance, athleticism, speed, the ability to step off either foot, the hand off, the offensive tackle and all the little individual battles we are so used to seeing on rugby grounds all over the world.

The IRB has a responsibility however to ensure that rugby remains a sport decided upon these factors and not by referees. They are the custodians of the sport played in heaven, but seems to prefer the sport becoming a game of chess, where the priority is not to win the match with physical ability, but rather how to use technical issues to outfox referees and thus win matches by but not playing the game, but “adapting” to a referees whim.

Not the reason why any of us played the game, I would think.

Hi Biltong,
Not sure a game was decided only on the physical dominance of one team over another.

As long as I played and have known the game skills, speed, strategy and to some extent luck have always had just as much a part of the decision but I know what you mean.

I just feel the games become too complex and the piecemeal approach the IRB has taken to sort things never seems to really nail it for the greater part. They fix one thing but cause another.

You have to remember that 2007-08 there was also a lot of dismay about the way the game was being played and I think the situation was worse than even now. Back then the key was to win 'without the ball'! Imagine that. Games were being won because teams were 'giving the ball away'. Pretty sure that wasnt the way I was taught to play the game.

It was ok for South Africa because they had the team that supported exactly that tactic. Keeping the ball in your own half meant being penalised- so get rid of it- let the others have it, pressure them into mistakes through muscling them in their own half, and score.

In 2009 it turned and for a time running rugby and clean ball was the key to setting up territorial advantage and scoring tries and that helped teams like NZ and Oz who preferred a fast, skilful game and had the right resources for it.

But then teams started getting wise to it and the try scoring started slowing up as the breakdowns became more complex and teams adopted methods to slowing them down and breaking the momentum. Defences also tightened up because they had to to stop the flow of running rugby and this may be why we have such good defences right through to the lower teams.

So its swung in another direction now and I think the combination has accounted for the lower number of tries being scored in general. Slow, complicated and messy ball and tight defences.

So the kicking came back- not just the field positioning but also the clever stuff- chip throughs, kicks for wingers, into the box etc.

So I think youre right. Something needs to happen as I think what you see now is all teams are doing the same thing. Heavy defence and focussing on set pieces, disrupting the breakdowns.

None of the so called open running teams (Wales, France, NZ and Oz) scored tries even though they all got through. The big matchups were very similar. Low scoring, tight and very physical forward battles with nothing much happening on the scoreboard. The prevalence of ref decisions making the difference since the players werent able to.

A good article Biltong. Excellent in fact.

The laws need simplifying IMO. The fact any law can be interpreted leads to inconsistency. However I know from my own naive experience that penalising "going off your feet" at every breakdown doesn't work either.

Self policing (rucking) the breakdown helped. But I don't see the IRB capable of reintroducing rucking for a few reasons.

- Rucking is still allowed. The one everybody forgets. If you come charging into a ruck and some misfortune who is lying on the wrong side gets studded then under current laws . . . .play on. If you see the guy and intentionally try to ruck him then its a penalty.

- Fears over player safety. Look at the fiasco about allowing collapsed mauls. If the IRB make any attempts to reintroduce rucking the parents and health/safety brigade will nip it in the bud early citing increases in insurance premiums and greater risk of injury as reasons. The IRB will be forced to ask why they removed it in the first place and can they guarantee it will not cause injury.

I do think that attitude plays a big part also. I was assistant ref at the weekend in a match in Ireland. Quite a good level, several provincial players playing. I overhead the coach tell two subs to "start looking for penalties" and pointed out "thats what you do best". Last week a captain told me it was "his right" to ruck out any player on the wrong side whether they interfere or not. I had to correct him.

The IRB don't deal in reality. It is possible to have perfect rugby under our current laws. Most amatuer games have little if any problems that we see on TV. But at the top level the coaches and players will bend and break any officiating system in place. thats the real problem for me.

does anyone else have windows 7, it is the worst damn operating system ever.

you type and then the curser just jumps everywhere and it deletes half your work and then you have to start all over.

Taylorman, the IRB is trying to change rugby union, and the more they try to change it, the more teams adapt to the new rules and it always finds itself back to its origins.

The only difference now is they laws and referee interpretations have made it more complex and ultimately penalty goals have a bigger influence on match results.

Couldn't disagree with you more Biltong.

Just try watching some of the old classics on ESPN. The refs were so fecking unfit they couldn't keep up with play... the touch judges were exactly that and had no input into the game.

Forward passes & knock ons were virtually ignored as long as they weren't directly affecting play!

Breakdowns were ruled by momentum... if your team was going forward in posession you were almost guaranteed not to be penalised even if you were truck 'n' trailer, going off your feet, sealing the ball or giving it the full McCaw in from the side.

Lineouts were a complete mess and a lottery as to who got the ball.

And the shananigans and 'dark arts' going on at scrum time were horrific. Trust me... I'm an old prop.

Your romantacising 'old' rugby I'm afraid mate.

Stag, I understand when you say player safety is of concern, but the truth is the IRB are in contradiction with themselves.

A player braces himself for the "hit", whether the referee makes the call to engage or the feeding team dictates the "hit", the fact that a player can not put his hand down to gain his balance in a scrum has nothing to do with safety, in fact in my opinion it is contradictory to safety.

A scrum can collapse and a front row forward can break his neck when all the pressure from the rear comes at him when he goes down.

Ultimately the front row forward are not allowed to scrum up, irrespective of who call the engage.

As a former loose head prop in the days of self engaging, these issues weren't a concern.

Take the line out as an example, you may lift a player, which is inherently the cause of danger in a line out. The player often hits the ground unsafely due to his own players not brining him to ground safely.

That is in stark contrast to the perception of player safety advocated by the IRB.

Rucking, what is deemed deliberate rucking and what is not?

I can run into a ruck, "clearing" a player without making it look deliberate, all that has happened now is players can go under flase security into a ruck to spoil ball for the opposition becuase they transgress under the "safety" of the law.

In my opinion it is nonsense to say it is done for safety reasons.

Some of these laws are there to protect weaker packs and has little to do with safety.

Metal Tiger wrote:Couldn't disagree with you more Biltong.

Just try watching some of the old classics on ESPN. The refs were so fecking unfit they couldn't keep up with play... the touch judges were exactly that and had no input into the game.

Forward passes & knock ons were virtually ignored as long as they weren't directly affecting play!

Breakdowns were ruled by momentum... if your team was going forward in posession you were almost guaranteed not to be penalised even if you were truck 'n' trailer, going off your feet, sealing the ball or giving it the full McCaw in from the side.

Lineouts were a complete mess and a lottery as to who got the ball.

And the shananigans and 'dark arts' going on at scrum time were horrific. Trust me... I'm an old prop.

Your romantacising 'old' rugby I'm afraid mate.

Tiger with all due respect half the issues you mention are nothing to do with laws, but to do with unfit amateur referees. The laws need simplifying, I want to see teams win by virtue of their dominance, not their ability to con referees.

Biltong,

Respect your opinion immensly mate, but as a player in both the am & pro eras I can honestly say I prefer the modern incarnation (and for my sins I am still playing) over what I used to play as a lad. But that's just my point of view I'm afraid and we all differ.

I do have some sympathy with certain parts of your post, I do think too much time is wasted on scrummaging and I've said it before in other posts that I am in favour of a choice of a free kick OR a scrum being awarded for a forward pass or a knock on. In this way the team benefitting from the error can choose the option which gives them the most advantage.

For example: Team A knocks on while attacking Team B's 22. Team B can just skip the scrum bit and take a kick to clear their lines.

That's just my pet theory though, and like rusty bullet holes, everyone has one.

biltongbek wrote:does anyone else have windows 7, it is the worst damn operating system ever.

you type and then the curser just jumps everywhere and it deletes half your work and then you have to start all over.

Taylorman, the IRB is trying to change rugby union, and the more they try to change it, the more teams adapt to the new rules and it always finds itself back to its origins.

The only difference now is they laws and referee interpretations have made it more complex and ultimately penalty goals have a bigger influence on match results.

Theres a fix for the cursor jumping. I had that when I first bought my PC- annoying as hell.
Have you a Dell by any chance? I think its something to do with a defect with the dell keyboard mappings if so.
I searched for ages for a fix and got one and it fixed it immediately. Trouble is I cant fremember where I got it and deleted it. Try searching on keywords... 'cursor keeps jumping when typing fix' sort of thing- you'll find heaps of responses and they arent all exectly the one youre after. Try including Dell as a keyword as well.

If I find it I'll PM ya.

Agree with the complexity. Refs are being asked to determine matches more and more so the inevitable will happen. Refs wont want the responsibility or even worse the good ones might want more bucks! Crazy situation.

I also think its worth mentioning how many cameras are focused on the game nowadays. What I see a lot is freeze framing slow motion replays and then lambasting the referee after. That won't change with new laws.

I do feel that getting rid of rucking was always a big mistake. I can't actually remember many people getting seriously injured by it anyway, and things like stamping were stamped out (sorry!) by very harsh penalties. Yes people got big scratches and occasionally bled a bit, but they were fine the next day. The advantage was that it took the pressure off the referee as the players COULD self ref the ruck area to an extent. I know I thought twice about lying on the wrong side of a ruck. Of course they can't bring it back now though so we should all forget about it.

The scrums - does anyone disagree with what Brian Moore has said about it? Here is a good link and I agree with him:

Brian Moore on Scrummaging

I know some people don't like him, but read it dispassionately and see what you think.

Interesting to note: No new laws needed for Brian's method - just a different "interpretation" i.e. applying what's written!

Yeah, Taylorman it is a Dell, will also try to find a solution.

Red Stag you are correct the slow mo replays is always going to cause controversies, but simplifying laws will go some way to reduce controversy.

I think a lot of sports are grappling with the same issues, and unfortunately none of the ones I follow are winning the battle. Most games that have been around for a hundred years found their own balance, but with the advent of professionalism, the administrators started worrying about things like liability and how not to scare the mothers/ fathers away so you got the precious next generation.

You also have technology changing the balance, particularly in games like cricket where too much has headed to the benefit of the batsman while the only real change for a bowler is better fitness and shoes.

The other biggie for me has been professional coaching setups. To use a boring example, but the one I understand the best, once upon a time you could be a fantastic Aussie rules player if you were brave and fast in the head, even if you were slow of foot. Without getting really boring, these guys were essential to the nature of the game. The problem now is that coaches analyze the shizer out of every opposition player and create situations where foot speed is the key ingredient. The result has been the short, podgy, smart, tough, skillful but slow bugger has disappeared, and most players are now homogenous.

To combat the boredom of what the game is now, we are on the same cycle of change a law and see what the coaches come up with to get past this one.

booma, let's face it, anyone under 7 foot tall nowadays no use in Rules!!!!

As to union, biltong you've picked out the main grief, scrums, rucks and lineouts. Only on eI think is better now than before are the lineouts, where it really used to be a lotto who comes away with the ball now it's seldom you get steals... unless jumping against Matlock and Botha...

Scrums defo bring back engage and no pushing till the ball is fed in, straight.

Rucking whilst the old self policing ways did work, there was always the odd bad man who runs in to inflict injuries rather than get the ball, so have no suggestion there.

Actually I disagree with you about back line moves, I think there were a lot of those before, usually involving the whole lien and some of the forwards, than now. Mostly I think now the loose forwards never push and is so quick up on the back line it is hard to move the ball much past the number 10

OzT you may be correct about the loose forwards, but you can blame that directly on the scrum laws.

Due to all the technicalities, the physicality as it used to be in a scrum, no longer is needed and hence the selectors these days want racing pigeons on the back row, rather than scrummagers.

OzT wrote:booma, let's face it, anyone under 7 foot tall nowadays no use in Rules!!!!

I pine for the days of Tony Liberatore Oz. 168cm, slow as a wet week, considered the dirtiest player ever, yet wins a Brownlow. Today he would be discarded straight away as too small, so would never get the trial where they'd discover he's slower than the matrix allows, so he couldn't get on the pitch to perform all those acts that he would now be permanently suspended for! Ahhhh, good times.

Ha, it seems I am not the only traditionalist out there.

Interesting but inaccurate in some points,two areas in particular the Scrum and the Ruck.When the Scrum was formed up by rows ,the referee then pulled thescrum to the Mark,THEN it was fed Hookers rated themselves by taking heels against the head.One a match was an achievement Scrummaging was the Props primary function,then Lineout duties,And finally Mobility.Props like Kevin Skinner were very mobile back as far as 1949.
The important thing with the 3-4-1[BOK] scrum was the placing of the feet and Driving off them when the feed occurred.
The Front row Mafia were full of dirty tricks but collapsing Scrums was beyond the Pale,No decent Prop would do it.
The dance,and skin tight shirts does`nt help and many props are not picked for lineout abilities.
Back before lifting was legalised,the Jumper could be "SUPPORTED" i.e.after he jumped coming down.NOT PROPELLED into the air.
Unfortunately the Boks [especially] had Lifting to a fine art so it was legalised,that also refers to jumping from restarts.
The Classic Ruck was a Loose Scrum 2-3-2 or 3-3-2 with all participants bound.Players joining did it explosively at a certain body angle. Momentum propelling the ruck forward delivering the ball to the scrum half[or whoever]
The Maul rules were changed from the team going forward,awarded a Scrum on collapse,to the reverse now.
Back play was the orthodox,dummy,sidestep,swerve,and fend,.Defence was man to man marking plus forward cover defence.
There were set moves,Blindside winger in,half break,fullback in,the scissors.dummy scissors,and the couple.
Forwards at times,passing rush,full wheel of scrum dribbling rush,peels from lineouts,special scrum moves like the "Wallaby"or "Wyllie".
Most of these have gone out due to law changes ,instead we now have a hybrid Union /League.Pick and Goes [pure 4th tackle law],league style defences,changes over the year to the offside laws[which were strictly enforced]
Lineouts especially were a bad area,IF one team took a ball against the throw more tan once,Skullduggery was a foot.
For me seeing teams pick up the ball,go into a ruck,then Scrum half stands waves,combs his hair.Before feeding another drive and the process repeated .
THE excuse ,"I`m making sure my team is ready for the next phase".
In attack all that does is allows the othersides Defence to set itself,when quick service may effect a linebreak.
Or in Defence to run down the clock for minutes on end.
The Breakdown area especially and scrums need the laws simplyfying in areas,and perhaps outlawing skin tight clothing for forwards at least.
As an example why not,IF the ball has been hooked and is playable continue.Even if the Scrum went down

biltongbek wrote:Ha, it seems I am not the only traditionalist out there.

Back in my day, I used to walk 5 miles to school, carrying my two brothers on my back, wearing no shoes across paddocks cover in bindies as big as your head, with only a lard sandwich and bottle of mud to keep me going.

"As an example why not,IF the ball has been hooked and is playable continue.Even if the Scrum went down"

That is one that really really peeve me off!! Quiet a few times there's been a good strike of the ball, it's at the number 8, and sometimes even out of the scrum when it gets called back for collapse/standing up whatever in the scrum, and all had to be reset. the ball already had been won for goodness sake, let the game flow!!!!

Grrrrr

shoes were for sissys in the gps schools......

And a lard sarnie?? Geeesh we greamt of that... Bulldog burrs with 2 inches spines we picked out of our bare feet was our chewie!!!

You got to eat all your own bindies without sharing with anyone else???? You should call yourself Silver Spoon.

OzT wrote:shoes were for sissys in the gps schools......

And a lard sarnie?? Geeesh we greamt of that... Bulldog burrs with 2 inches spines we picked out of our bare feet was our chewie!!!

And if you try telling that to the young people today, why they won't believe you.

Back in our day times were hard.

The animals had no fat reserves, so when they were slaughtered there was nothing to make lard of.

It was so dry the cows gave us powdered milk.

This is where biltong orignated from, as we had no ceilings and no refrigerators we hung meat onto the roof trusses(those who had roofs) and ate the dried meat.

I never had the opportunity to walk to school barefoot, we had to run as the Lions were hungry and chased us all the way to the safety of the school.

Fortunately you never had to be the fastest, just fast enough to outrun the slowest kid.

biltong, they do seem hard school years for you guys, but wait till you get the drop bears falling on ya and clinging to your shoulders as we ran thru the gum trees dodging them ferocious wombats....

Wombats are ferocious? hell we fed them to our pets after catching them bare handed..

na, they're just usually pest ridden.... and maybe just a tad quicker mover than sloths... specially in winter!!

This is the dull season for me, no serious rugby being played, well involving the
wallabies anyway, that I can get my teeth into. Well there was the ODI against you guys but even that is now finished, and 4 weeks before the 1st test against the kiwis.

Maybe I should, as I am in the uk now, take up soccer???

I realise you are desperate, but to go to a football game is just wrong.

Go watch some Heineken cup rugby, then let us know if there are any promising talent we can poach for the Tri nation teams.

You think I am a kiwi?? LOL!!!

Disclaimer: Sub kiwi for English/Welsh any other nations!!!

Never too late to start my friend, at least you have the australian dollar, we have to pay a gazilion rand just to get the guys interested.

Yesh but like us in the 3Ns we have the life style to compensate.. well only been to CT in your country but that's quite like the northern beaches suburbs back home, cept for a different accent and smaller cars.... though I would have thought if they got to a culb in the high country life night life may be a bit lacking

Latest,Scrum laws commitee about to report,and TMO to be trialled in Nhand SH matches for scoring controversie or foul play over both halves..

emack, do you know where the report will be published?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10763033

https://www.606v2.com/t17360-paddy-o-brien-proposes-trial-of-expanded-role-for-the-tmo#638747

OzT wrote:biltong, they do seem hard school years for you guys, but wait till you get the drop bears falling on ya and clinging to your shoulders as we ran thru the gum trees dodging them ferocious wombats....

Try getting brought up in Merthyr

I had a read of the Wikipedia page on Methyr, and found this little gem for you to hang your hat or towel on:

"While testing a new angina treatment, researchers in Merthyr Tydfil discovered (purely by accident) that the new drug had erection-stimulating side effects. This discovery would go on to form the basis for Viagra.[9] "

This thread appears to have turned into a Monty Python sketch.

So I will join in...

Dodging wombats & chewing bindies!? Luxury! Luxury I say!

When I was a kid there were 15 of us living in a cardboard box by the side of the road. I used to have to get up 2 hours before I went to bed to work a full shift at the pit before I went to school. My Dad used to come home drunk every night and thrash us all to sleep with a broken bottle. And we were grateful for it!

Ha, at least you could sleep, back in the day there were no doors and predators were roaming free, we had to stand guard at night, waiting for the Lions, cheetahs, leopards and hungry hyenas.

Lions, cheetahs, leopards and hungry hyenas?? Blah!!

We used to have tigers back in my days, until the wombats put paid to them!!!

And wait till you are lying on the beach one morning after a big night out and the gulls decide to use your face a a latrine.... and then after the bombardment you'd have to wipe yourself down with prickly pear before walking to school in bare feet, then picking out bindies from the soles and wiping the giant jumping jacks, a vicious meat eating ant, off your calves!!!

Ha, kids never had it so good now a days!!!

I could try to beat that, but my BS stories have run out, so yeah, back in the day was great for growing up. we have a sayng over here in SA whislt having a cold beer at a braai (barbeque for the uneducated)

"Africa is a tough place, but someone has to live here"

Good idea biltong, I was thinking that had to be my last shot at bs as well!!

Damn, so I would have won if I hung in just one BS post longer.

boomeranga wrote:I had a read of the Wikipedia page on Methyr, and found this little gem for you to hang your hat or towel on:

"While testing a new angina treatment, researchers in Merthyr Tydfil discovered (purely by accident) that the new drug had erection-stimulating side effects. This discovery would go on to form the basis for Viagra.[9] "

Told you it was a HARD life